| From: | Robin <robinstc(at)live(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Database block lifecycle |
| Date: | 2014-08-13 18:19:41 |
| Message-ID: | BLU436-SMTP1296CEB85E7050A6CFA9C52E2EB0@phx.gbl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 13/08/2014 17:23, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:07 AM, pinker <pinker(at)onet(dot)eu
> <mailto:pinker(at)onet(dot)eu>> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> btw. 512MB if we assume up to 600 connection is a reasonable value?
> >>
> >
> >>Reasonable value for what?
> >
> > For normal server load.
>
>
> 512MB is being questioned as a reasonable value for what?
> shared_buffers? work_mem? maintenance_work_mem?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
Generally speaking, folk imagine that DBMS performance is all about disk
access - in reality chucking as much memory as possible at the server(s)
is an optimal investment. analyse your queries and store time critical
stuff in memory
R+C
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andy Lau | 2014-08-14 02:18:36 | Best practices for cloning DB servers |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-08-13 16:23:17 | Re: Database block lifecycle |